Long-time Sabine watchers will know that when it comes to other people’s problems, Sabine is always there…to tell them (and anyone else who’ll listen) all about how the same thing happened to her, only it was a hundred times worse, and caused her terrible trauma.
Starting with her story of how she was “chosen” to be rescued from the Dresden firestorm in 1945:
My mum was 22 when Dresden was bombarded and her landlady’s house was the only one left in the whole street. So she used my nappies before her mouth to enable her to breathe and walk, walk, walk with me in her pram and 75 kg ‘flight luggage’, as she called it – the reason for her back pains later…
Apparently I was too traumatised to even cry. My baby bum was the sorest a nurse had ever seen, but I didn’t cry. Maybe that’s what trained me for experiencing pain every day since 10 January 1973, when the car fell 25 feet and dislocated my hip as well as a whiplash…
…Sabine’s life has been a non-stop cavalcade of trauma and disaster. Much, much, MUCH worse than anyone else’s pain or disaster, you understand.
And so it came as no surprise to find the following comment on her friend and colleague Maurice Kirk’s blog the other day. Maurice, you might recall, was recently found guilty of breaching his restraining order for the umpteenth time. And as we all know, Sabine is no stranger to restraining orders.
Let’s have a look at that numbered list, though; we think we see a few problems with Sabine’s logic.
Internet as ‘last resort’?
- Using the internet as a last resort, when we can’t get justice in courts;
Hmm. Funny about that “using the internet as a last resort” thing. We remember events a bit differently.
In fact, we remember Sabine writing this to then-Home Secretary Theresa May, in January 2015:
To avoid high level embarrassment, the following possible arrangements might be worth considering:
1) Instead of starting public law proceedings against the school, the children are returned – with immediate effect – to live with the maternal grandparents in Russia.
2) Instead of mobilising English and Russian social media, the father is given a non-molestation order for life, anywhere in the world.
3) Instead of joining the Russian government to the proceedings, the children are released to their mother and maternal grandparents with immediate effect.
This sounds awfully like a series of threats to us. At this point in the Hampstead SRA hoax, Sabine had not even been before the courts; her complaint was not that “she could not get justice”, but that the courts were not doing as she wished with regard to RD’s children.
Sabine would not come before the courts for another year and a half, but that never stopped her from using the internet as a weapon to push her own sick conspiracy agenda.
Was the restraining order legal?
2. Being expected to comply with a ‘Restraining Order’ — no matter how valid, lawful or legal;
We’ve explained this before, but let’s give it one more go: the restraining orders which Judge Worsley imposed on Sabine and Neelu following the collapse of their trial in July 2016 was, in fact, perfectly legal. According to the Crown Prosecution Service,
Section 12 of the DVCVA 2004 introduced section 5A into the PHA 1997, which allows the court to make a restraining order after acquitting a defendant of any offence if the court considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment from the defendant.
As to whether the restraining orders were “valid”, in the sense of being justified and proportionate, we wrote at the time,
Judge Worsley ruled that despite the acquittal of the defendants, he was still given powers by Parliament in respect of restraining orders. He said he could not think of a better case or circumstance in which to exercise these powers.
He said he felt he had reached the bar of necessity in this matter, as in his view the defendants were likely to pursue a course of further intimidation. He noted that the test of ‘reasonable’ and proportionate’ rulings had also been met. Any further breach would be subject to a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. …
Many arguments set forward by the defence in objection to the restraining orders were overturned by the Judge. These included freedom of speech and the right to legitimate protest; it was also suggested that the limitation of the order duration ought to be confined to a maximum of two years.
The judge stated that whilst he was mindful of the first two issues, he also had to balance the issue of harassment and distress caused. He noted that as Neelu had documented her intent to turn the church service of 22nd March 2015 into a ‘court of common law’, this served to prove the intent to harass. As he was of the opinion that this harassment would continue, he therefore didn’t believe that the orders were unreasonable or disproportionate.
With respect to the limitations of the orders, he decreed that these should remain indefinitely.
Judge Worsley stated that he was far from convinced that the harassment would last only for the short term, saying he felt rather ‘that it would go on and on and on’! He went so far as to state that even in a period of 5 to 10 years, he was not convinced that things would have changed or subsided.
The background to the case had been “well rehearsed and the obsessive campaign in the face of Justice Pauffley’s ruling had been an appalling and frightening experience for the witnesses”, he said. The protestors as a whole continued to make allegations regarding drinking babies’ blood and sexual ritual abuse.
Perhaps Sabine wasn’t listening to the judge at the time. We hope this clears things up for her.
Alleged criminals posing as witnesses?
3. Alleged criminals posing as ‘witnesses’;
We’re beginning to wonder whether Sabine has completely lost the plot.
We assume she’s referring to the witnesses at Rupert Quaintance’s trial in August, all of whom were victims of the Hampstead SRA hoax. It seems that Sabine expects some of these people to testify at her own trial (which hasn’t even been confirmed yet).
In case she’s forgotten, all of the people originally targetted by Belinda, Abe, Ella, and Sabine were fully exonerated in Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgment of 19 March 2015. None of these people are “alleged criminals”, and Sabine’s calling them that further underscores the need for the aforementioned restraining order. If she still cannot grasp that these people are innocent of any wrongdoing, then it seems likely that she’ll continue harassing them ad infinitum…which means that Judge Worsley was quite correct in making the restraining order valid for her lifetime.
No complainants, just witnesses?
4. Police instigating procedures without ‘complainants’, but bringing along ‘witnesses’;
This is a bit of a head-scratcher. We aren’t sure what Sabine means by “without complainants”, unless she thinks that no one made the original complaints against her when (at various times over the past year) she breached her restraining order. This seems implausible, as a police investigation is generally opened when someone makes a complaint.
As to “bringing along witnesses”, is it not standard procedure for witnesses to testify at trials? We’re confused. If any of this blog’s legal eagles have any idea what Sabine is talking about here, please feel free to let us know!
Preventing or investigating crimes?
5. Having to face prison for ‘contempt of court’ or the violation of said Restraining Orders, which actually do NOT apply when we ‘report or prevent crimes’.
While it’s true that Section 1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 specifies that the charge of harassment “does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime”, it has been made clear in three courts of law now that there was no crime to detect. Mrs Justice Pauffley’s original ruling was accepted by all parties in both Neelu and Sabine’s 2016 trial, and in Rupert’s trial a month ago.
Again, the fact that Sabine clings to the delusion that she is “preventing or detecting crime” further illustrates the necessity of the restraining order which she feels is so oppressive.
Sabine has mentioned several times that she expects to be charged in mid-October. If her arguments above represent any part of her defence plan, she’s betraying both her own sense of superior entitlement and a fundamental lack of understanding of how the law works. Should she be charged and eventually face trial, we doubt very much that the jury will accept her arguments…no matter how much she claims to have been “victimised” by the courts.